Defense of Marriage Oddly, the initiative did not require that the bride and groom expose their tackle at the wedding to verify one of each; if it had, I might have supported it. It doesn’t even require a doctor’s verification. Interestingly, the law also doesn’t provide guidance for "intersexed" people, who used to be termed "hermaphrodites". Go HERE. About one person in a hundred is born with atypical genitalia. Think of a hundred people you know and try to guess who might be carrying non-standard issue gear. Under the law, what if an intersexed person tries to marry a "normally" sexed person, do you just ignore the extra squigglies? Should someone have to tape over something? What if two intersexed people marry: should they be allowed to marry only if they can prove the right parts line up? Since the right to marry is based on genitalia, should they have to pay for two marriage licenses? What if an intersexed person wanted to marry her- or himself, since the marriage license is for one of each, can they marry themselves?
What if a transgender man dressed as the bride and a transgender woman dressed as the groom try to marry? Should they be allowed to marry? Where should the best man stand? These are questions we need answered, and this is why the alleged bride and groom should have to show their junk, even if only to the pious and elderly minister. Really considerate people would include photos in the invitations, to get the matter over early. No one is proposing an initiative to require the "tackle test" but John Marcotte has received clearance from California Secretary of State Debra Bowen to gather signatures for a proposition for a Constitutional Amendment to prevent divorce. Download Bowen’s press release HERE
Marcotte’s Proposition, called the 2010 Defense of Marriage Act, is described this way by Bowen’s release: ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.) Marcotte intends the proposition as a response to Proposition 8. In an interview with Rob Cockerham HERE Marcotte says:
Fringe Editor
Warning: this piece contains ideas which may not be appropriate for people of any age.
Last November voters passed Proposition 8, sometimes called the "Defense of Marriage" proposition, which determined that a marriage can only take place between a person with a penis and a person with a vagina.
…the secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.
In the interview Marcotte says:
Smart and funny: John Marcotte
By proposing this amendment Marcotte is trying to reflect the idea of government into the lives of the people who sent the government after gay couples. Is it right for the government to decided who may marry whom? If so, it is right for the government to decided that couples can’t disrespect marriage by getting divorced.
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It's just a fact of life. It's not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it's about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It's on the television, it's in movies, the newspapers. It's even in our kids textbooks.
Marcotte has a website HERE that is supposed to be funny and ironic; we worry that a lot of people won’t see it that way.
In fact, here is what we at the Prospect think is funny: it might pass. Look at it this way: a lot of anti-gay zealots aren’t going to care or even understand that Marcotte is making an ironic statement with the proposition, they’ll support it because they are fundamentalists and are against divorce. It will seem like a good idea to them. Gays and lesbians, particularly out of the closet and in your face folks, are going to support it to as a heads up lesson to hetero couples who supported Prop 8. If, between these two groups Marcotte can cause a momentary groundswell, many more people will sign on just because most people do what they think most people like themselves do. We encourage people to locate and sign Marcotte’s petitions, because any more, politics in California isn’t about good law, it’s about forcing other people to agree with you. Squigglies! Marcotte has a funny and intelligent blog HERE and a piece on the true costs of health care we wish we’d written HERE . 
This editorial means no disrespect against intersexed persons, who more than anyone probably understand that what is under someone’s clothes is none of your business. In any case, the boundaries of gender and sex are broader than the "his or her" perspective allows, and that bias is a cruel and foolish basis for law.
The Prospect is founded in individual liberty, and so does not support Constitutional Amendments that tell persons how to live their private lives. Proposition 8, which created within the Constitution a class of persons against whom discrimination is institutionalized, is a very anti-American amendment. If you supported it, shame on you! It isn’t your business what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, nor is it your business what they do it with.
